Sanchez v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 63954,No. 1,63954,1 |
| Citation | 603 S.W.2d 869 |
| Parties | Carlos SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robin R. Norris, El Paso, for appellant.
Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty. and Stuart L. Leeds, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS and DALLY, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
On January 23, 1976, the appellant pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. Punishment was assessed at imprisonment for five years. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation.
The terms of appellant's probation were modified four times but on June 29, 1979, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State's Motion to Revoke Probation. The court revoked probation and sentence was imposed.
The appellant contends that the trial court failed upon request to file written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant also argues that the modifications of his probation violated due process. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in using the same grounds for revoking probation as were used for modifying his probation.
The appellant's contention that the trial court failed to file written findings of facts and conclusions of law is without merit since the trial court did in fact file its findings of fact prior to the record being transmitted to this Court. There was no error. Barrow v. State, 505 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
The appellant next argues that the modifications of the terms of his probation violated due process of law because the order to modify was conducted without a hearing. The original terms of probation ordered the appellant to report to a specific probation officer on the first and tenth of each month. Through two orders of modification the appellant was ordered to report to a different named probation officer each Monday and Friday and to orally ingest antabuse. The trial court found that the appellant failed to report five consecutive times.
We cannot agree that such modifications without a hearing violate due process of law. The terms imposed upon the appellant could have been included in the original probation conditions. Art. 42.12, Sec. 6, V.A.C.C.P. The terms were not unreasonable. Nor does the appellant contend that he was not given notice of the changes in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. State
...sustain appellant's conviction under section 841.082. Cf. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Ross v. State, 523 S.W.2d 402, 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (o......
-
State v. Smith
...Ohio App. 3d 138, 141, 483 N.E.2d 493 (1984) (adding condition that defendant complete probation diversion program); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. App. 1980) (adding condition that defendant ingest antabuse). Accordingly, we conclude that an order of probation may be modified ......
-
Joseph v State
...App. 1978). A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Burke v. State, 930 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd). Thus, in order to prevail, appel......
-
State v. McDonald
...493 (1984) (probation extension upheld under Morrissey and Gagnon but no other federal decisions were considered); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. 1980) (ex parte modification did not violate due process where defendant was made aware of changes). A few courts have held th......
-
Table of cases
..., 986 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999, no pet.), §6:72 Salazar v. State , 795 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), §11:57 Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), §14:121 Sanchez v. State , 120 S.W.3d 359 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003), §16:71 Sanchez v. State , 138 S.W.3d 324 (Tex.Crim.App......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...where violation of the term as modified was the basis of revocation. [Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 42.12, §23(b); Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Cr.App. 1980); Elizondo v. State , 966 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998).] §14:122 Revocation of Community Supervision If a ......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...where violation of the term as modified was the basis of revocation. [Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 42.12, §23(b); Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Cr.App. 1980); Elizondo v. State , 966 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998).] §14:122 Revocation of Community Supervision If a ......
-
Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
...where violation of the term as modiied was the basis of revocation. [Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 42.12, §23(b); Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Elizondo v. State , 966 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet. h.).] §14:122 Revocation of Community Su......